Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Henrik Singmann Karl Christoph Klauer

Published by怨尘 齐 Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Henrik Singmann Karl Christoph Klauer"— Presentation transcript:

1 Henrik Singmann Karl Christoph Klauer
Does Logic Feel Good? Probably Not! Refuting Claims of a Fluency Mediated Intuitive Logic. Henrik Singmann Karl Christoph Klauer

2 Deductive Reasoning Deductive reasoning is concerned with the validity of arguments, the normative yardstick being extensional bivalent logic. One prominent paradigm: Testing people's ability to assess whether or not a conclusions necessarily follows from a given set of (assumed to be true) premises. People are notoriously bad in this task and influenced by numerous factors, e.g.: Believability (Evans, Barston, and Pollard, 1983; Klauer, Musch & Naumer, 2000) Confirmation bias (Wason, 1960) Cognitive ability (Stanovich, 1999)

3 Examples: Does it follow?
No ice creams are vons. Some vons are hot. Therefore, some ice creams are not hot. No expensive things are mets. Some mets are diamonds. Therefore, some diamonds are inexpensive.

4 Examples: Does it follow?
No ice creams are vons. Some vons are hot. Therefore, some ice creams are not hot. No expensive things are mets. Some mets are diamonds. Therefore, some diamonds are inexpensive. invalid but believable. valid but unbelievable.

5 Syllogisms No ice creams are vons. Some vons are hot. Therefore, some ice creams are not hot. No expensive things are mets. Some mets are diamonds. Therefore, some diamonds are inexpensive. a b a b c b b c a c c a invalid valid

6 Syllogisms Consist of two premises (assumed to be true) and one conclusion. The conclusion contains the two terms (a and c) present only once in the premises. Meta-analysis suggests that abstract syllogisms of the form as the one presented before are especially difficult. Only 13% of participants draw the correct conclusion from those premises (IE2, Khemlani & Johnson-Laird, 2012). Most theories agree that these syllogisms can only be solved by a delibarative, effortful, and resource-demanding process (see Khemlani & Johnson-Laird, 2012, for an overview).

7 Fluency Mediated Intuitive Logic
Morsanyi and Handley (2012, JEP:LMC) argue that people have an intuitive sense of logicality: (see also De Neys, 2012; De Neys & Bonnefon, in press) Valid syllogisms have a larger conceptual fluency Invalid syllogisms have a lower conceptual fluency As conceptual fluency is known to increase the perceived pleasentness of stimuli (e.g., Whittlesea, 1993), valid conclusions should receive higher liking ratings. They succesfully tested these predictions in a series of four studies.

8 No ice creams are vons.

9 Some vons are hot.

10 Some ice creams are not hot.

11 Therefore, some ice creams are not hot.
How much do you like the last sentence? Don't like it at all. Don't like it. Don't know. Like it. Like it very much.

12 Morsanyi & Handley, Exp 4, (n = 27)
ME: validity, p < .05 ME: believability, p < .05 Interaction: validity × believability, p = .08 Participants give higher liking ratings for valid than for invalid syllogisms. However: Logical Status and believability/item are perfectly confounded!

13 Morsanyi & Handley, Exp 4, (n = 27)
ME: validity, p < .05 ME: believability, p < .05 Interaction: validity × believability, p = .08 Participants give higher liking ratings for valid than for invalid syllogisms. However: Logical Status and believability/item are perfectly confounded!

14 Possible Confound No ice creams are vons. Some vons are hot. Therefore, some ice creams are not hot. Syllogism is invalid, but appeared only in exactly this form. Some ice creams are vons. No vons are hot. Therefore, some ice creams are not hot. Syllogism is valid. If Morsanyi and Handley's hypotheses is true, this syllogism should receive higher liking ratings.

15 Klauer & Singmann (in press), Exp. 3
In a series of studies we tested this (and an additional possible confound, not discussed here). Two conditions (with materials translated to German): With fixed conclusion (i.e., the same material/confound as Morsanyi & Handley, 2012), n = 30 With randomized conclusions (i.e., logical status is randomly assigned to the different contents), n = 30 Klauer, K. C., & Singmann, H. (in press). Does Logic Feel Good? Testing for Intuitive Detection of Logicality in Syllogistic Reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition.

16 Klauer & Singmann (in press), Exp. 3
Replication condition: No ME of validity, p = .16 ME of believability, p = .02 But interaction of believability and validity, p < (which we found of this shape in all experiments with the original materials)

17 Klauer & Singmann (in press), Exp. 3
no effect of validity at all!

18 Klauer & Singmann (in press), Exp. 4
To test if there really is no effect of validity with randomized contents, we replicated the randomized conclusion condition with n = 200: No ME of validity, p = .24 No interaction with validity, p = .08. ME of believability, p < .001

19 Klauer & Singmann (in press), Exp. 2
Effect only due to content of the conclusion? Task: "How much do you like the last statement?" (i.e., conclusion) Replication with just the conclusion (n = 31), revealed same pattern. interaction of believability and "validity", p = .04

20 New data with original material (English)
Web based experiment (via crowdflower.com) with slightly different design (MH, Exp. 2), n = 22: self-paced presentation conclusion and second premise visible when giving liking rating no "abstract" contents contents not randomized We replicate the original findings: ME validity, p = .02 ME believability, p = .009 no interaction, p = .88

21 What if we randomize the contents?
Web based experiment (identical to previous), but contents were randomized on logical status (n = 57). We replicate our findings (Exp. 3 & 4): No ME of validity, p = .72 ME of believability, p =.02 no interaction, p = .60

22 Summary Morsanyi & Handley (2012) propose that validity of syllogisms can be detected intuitively via larger conceptual fluency of valid versus invalid syllogisms. Four experiments support their hypothesis. In their experiments, they did not control for content of conditional, which was confounded with logical status. When controlling for content (by randomly assigning logical status to the different contents), the effect disappears in three studies (n = 287). We do not find any evidence for their claim.

23 We thank Johannes Falck for his help in realizing the randomized web experiment.

24 Bayesian ANOVA With NHST difficult to gather evidence for the null
Bayesian ANOVA (Rouder et al., 2012; Morey & Rouder, 2013) provides Bayes Factors for different models for the conditions with randomized contents: Intercept only model is the reference (null model). No evidence for validity in addition to believability. Model Exp 3 (rand) Exp 4 Online Meta A validity .11 .10 .08 believability 1.96 1.5e+12 4.05 4.6e+14 believability + validity .21 7.9e+10 .31 1.2e+13 believability * validity .02 2.0e+10 .03 2.9e+12

Download ppt "Henrik Singmann Karl Christoph Klauer"

Similar presentations

Bayesian Hypothesis Testing In Nested Models Harold Jeffreys Jeff Rouder.

Bayesian Hypothesis Testing In Nested Models Harold Jeffreys Jeff Rouder.
C81COG: Cognitive Psychology 1 SYLLOGISTIC REASONING Dr. Alastair D. Smith Room B22 – School of Psychology

C81COG: Cognitive Psychology 1 SYLLOGISTIC REASONING Dr. Alastair D. Smith Room B22 – School of Psychology
The Impact of Criterion Noise in Signal Detection Theory: An Evaluation across Recognition Memory Tasks Julie Linzer David Kellen Henrik Singmann Karl.

The Impact of Criterion Noise in Signal Detection Theory: An Evaluation across Recognition Memory Tasks Julie Linzer David Kellen Henrik Singmann Karl.
Solved the Maze? Start at phil’s house. At first, you can only make right turns through the maze. Each time you cross the red zigzag sign (under Carl’s.

Solved the Maze? Start at phil’s house. At first, you can only make right turns through the maze. Each time you cross the red zigzag sign (under Carl’s.
Introduction, Acquiring Knowledge, and the Scientific Method

Introduction, Acquiring Knowledge, and the Scientific Method
Chapter One: The Science of Psychology

Chapter One: The Science of Psychology
RESEARCH IN EDUCATION Chapter I. Explanations about the Universe Power of the gods Religious authority Challenge to religious dogma Metacognition: Thinking.

RESEARCH IN EDUCATION Chapter I. Explanations about the Universe Power of the gods Religious authority Challenge to religious dogma Metacognition: Thinking.
Introduction to Earth Science Doing Science.  Scientific method – a systemic approach to answering questions about the natural world  Sufficient observation.

Introduction to Earth Science Doing Science.  Scientific method – a systemic approach to answering questions about the natural world  Sufficient observation.
Chapter 4 Hypothesis Testing, Power, and Control: A Review of the Basics.

Chapter 4 Hypothesis Testing, Power, and Control: A Review of the Basics.
Chapter One: The Science of Psychology. Ways to Acquire Knowledge Tenacity Tenacity Refers to the continued presentation of a particular bit of information.

Chapter One: The Science of Psychology. Ways to Acquire Knowledge Tenacity Tenacity Refers to the continued presentation of a particular bit of information.
TEMPLATE DESIGN © 2008 www.PosterPresentations.com Difference in reaction times between true memories and false memories in a recognition task Marta Forai.

TEMPLATE DESIGN © Difference in reaction times between true memories and false memories in a recognition task Marta Forai.
Significance Toolbox 1) Identify the population of interest (What is the topic of discussion?) and parameter (mean, standard deviation, probability) you.

Significance Toolbox 1) Identify the population of interest (What is the topic of discussion?) and parameter (mean, standard deviation, probability) you.
The attraction hypothesis

The attraction hypothesis
Deductive Reasoning Chapter 2 Lesson 4.

Deductive Reasoning Chapter 2 Lesson 4.
Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.

Question of the Day!  We shared a lot of examples of illogical arguments!  But how do you make a LOGICAL argument? What does your argument need? What.
Reasoning.

Reasoning.
Why is Research Important?. Basic Research Pure science or research Research for the sake of finding new information and expanding the knowledge base.

Why is Research Important?. Basic Research Pure science or research Research for the sake of finding new information and expanding the knowledge base.
What do we cover in section C?. Unit 4 research methods Explain the key features of scientific investigation and discuss whether psychology can be defined.

What do we cover in section C?. Unit 4 research methods Explain the key features of scientific investigation and discuss whether psychology can be defined.
DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from.

DEDUCTIVE VS. INDUCTIVE REASONING. Problem Solving Logic – The science of correct reasoning. Reasoning – The drawing of inferences or conclusions from.
 Descriptive Methods ◦ Observation ◦ Survey Research  Experimental Methods ◦ Independent Groups Designs ◦ Repeated Measures Designs ◦ Complex Designs.

 Descriptive Methods ◦ Observation ◦ Survey Research  Experimental Methods ◦ Independent Groups Designs ◦ Repeated Measures Designs ◦ Complex Designs.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google